Re: Trix 400 new to @100 how to???

"Jeff Novick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Jean-David Beyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > PG wrote:
> > > I have erroneously exposed a new KODAK TRIX 400
(400TX) TO @100 ISO (as
> a
> > > neuby I have used two bodies with different films
forgetting to
> compensate
> > > times)!
> > >
> > > I have all chemicals to formulate whichever
development, also i have PMK
> > > Pyro, Microphen, HC110, ID11, Rodinal, and Ornano
ST33.
> > >
> > > i haven't experience with pull process, How can i
develop this film?
> > >
> > > thanks in advance!
> > > PG
> >
> > When you overexpose film, the best thing to do is
develop it normally.
> > Changing the development time will change only the
contrast, and you
> > probably do not want to do that. If you develop
normally, you will get
> > better shadow detail (which may or may not be important
to you), and if
> > you are using obsolete films that have shoulders around
Zone IX
> > (Panatomic-X comes to mind if you have any left), you
may get blocking
> > of the highlights, but that should be about it.
> >
> > -- 
> >    .~.  Jean-David Beyer           Registered Linux User
>
> I don't understand this. If you develop the film less, you
are getting less
> contrast in the highlights because he has overexposed the
film. You don't
> want the highlights to blow out so you give less
development. The detail in
> the shadows should all be there regardless if you develop
normally or give
> less development. No?
>
  Most films have tremendous overexposure latitude and
almost no underexposure latitude. By latitude is meant the
variation in exposure which results in identical tonal
rendition. Beause the ISO speed method gives just about the
minimum exposure for decent shadow detail there isn't much
room for underexposure, but lots of room for overexposure.]
  Here we have two stops which is well within the film's
capacity to record with normal contrast throughout. The
negatives will be overly dense and will take longer to print
but the prints will look good.
  Two things can be done to reduce the density. One is
simply to develop less. This, as Jean-David points out,
lowers the contrast so the negative will probably look best
on a harder grade of paper than usually used. Reducing
development time about 30% for Tri-X will reduce contrast
about one paper grade and effective film speed about 3/4
stop.
  Another method is to use a developer which looses speed.
Both Kodak Microdol-X and Ilford perceptol are very low
activity, extra-fine-grain developers when used full
strength. Normal development in either at full strength will
reduce film speed nearly a stop. Since the ISO speed is
probably marginal for good shadow detail anyway these
negatives developed in Microdol-X wil be about normal
contrast and not much more than normally dense. They will be
quite fine grain and have good tonal rendition. If this is
35mm film the negatives may not look as "sharp" becuse these
developers, at full strength, have virtually no acutance
effect. For larger formats this makes little or no
difference, or if you have _very_ good lenses on the 35mm
camera, it may actually look better.
  If you mix your own developer you can use Kodak D-25 in
place of Microdol-X or Perceptol. It is NOT the same as
either of the above. It is D-23 buffered to neutral pH. It
is an extra-fine-grain developer like the above with the
same speed loss when used full strength.
  Note that when any of these developers is diluted 1:3 they
loose their extra-fine-grain property, becoming about the
same as D-76, but have full film speed and considerable
acutance effects. At one time I thought this was due to the
relative time of action of the sulfite but a good photo
chemist I correspond with says this is only part of the
story, the effect being due to a complex of differences when
diluting.


-- 
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]